See? This is what happens when people like bigtexxx distort the truth by saying stuff like "96% of the tax receipts are from the top 50% of wage earners. 36% are from the top 1%." when what he SHOULD have said was this: " 96% of the federal income tax receipts not including social security, medicare, or other taxes are from the top 50% of wage earners. 36% are from the top 1%. And then people get deluded and confused and say thing like this: "What other nation gives the lower 50% of the country more for thier tax dollar then the United States?" based on a mistaken sense of the share of the tax burden on the lower 50%. Oh, and the answer to that question is that PRETTY MUCH EVERY WESTERN COUNTRY redistributes its wealth to a far greater extent than the United States.
You mean companies like Levi Strauss who shut down all their US plants so they can pay cheaper labor in China?
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never called them evil, and I do not believe they are evil. They are rich and as such they owe a debt to the society that has helped them to amass their riches. They take advantage of the capitalist system and then try to take advantage of their workers by shirking their responsibility to maintain the system that made them rich. Canada, Holland, Switzerland, Germany, France, England, Japan, etc. The list is much longer than I can detail.
OK well obviously the Tax cuts have been working. The economy which was in a recession from the last year of the Clinton Administration through the first year or two of the Bush administration is very strong. We have had some of the best economic growth we have had since the 80's(as proven by the GDP which is a totally reliable and unbiased figure) and consumer confidence is way up. Even if the Rich benefitted from the cuts, we all benefit from a better economy. I know one of the funds in my 401K has gone up 42% in the past year so I am not complaining at all. If the economy didnt improve at all after the tax cuts then maybe some can complain, but it has worked. Give credit where it is due .. although many of you hate Bush and you are going to say it is not him that improved the economy so save your breath .. or the muscles in your fingers for that matter.
Where are the jobs??? Another "jobless recovery" does not bode well for another Bush running for reelection.
This is the second time in this thread I've had to post this: LOL, business cycle, look it up. I don't feel like explaining to you for the thousandth time how a payroll tax holiday would have been more equitable and had a greater stimulus effect, so I won't
Of course the tax cuts had some effect, but the question has always been, was it the best way to go? I also love how folks are defining down the critieria... any growth at all means the tax cuts are to be praised as the mover and you can only criticize if there is no growth. Ridiculous. We should be talking about where we would be if policy x or y were pursued over the tax cuts. Additionally, we're what, more than 20 months into the recovery but with not many jobs to show for it... certainly nowhere near the number predicted by the administration when they were lobbying for the cuts.
You have failed to mention a country in which the lower tax brackets pay a lower % and get more then they recieve in the US. Canada's poorest pay a higher percentage (17% vs 10-15%) and their rich pay less (29% vs 35%).
The key is "GET" more. They also have national health care, better public schools, etc etc etc. Why don't you edumacate me on all the stuff that poor people "get"?
It is very well established that the tax cuts helped spur record growth last quarter. Wall Street agrees completely. It is not even worth arguing this. Sam, your argument is just incredibly weak. It is a tangent to the conversation. Additionally, you provide no support for your wild hypothesis. While the liberals continue to bemoan this fact and wish the worst upon the US economy, the economic indicators are predicting a strong economic rebound. Consumer confidence is improving, retail sales are improving, manufacturing activity and industrial production are very strong, and inflation is in check. The liberals continue to mindlessly repeat their jobs criticism, although an informed economist will always point out that unemployment is a *lagging* indicator. It will only improve *after* the economy improves, which we are seeing. I wonder why the liberals choose to harp on the *one* indicator that isn't overwhelmingly positive right now? PARTY OF PESSIMISM. Once again, the liberals' criticism falls far short of the mark.
So, wanting the rich to pay their fair share makes me a socialist? You are either seriously deluded or completely snowed by the line of crap being fed to you by the GOP.
For the third time: LOL, business cycle, look it up. I don't feel like explaining to you for the thousandth time how a payroll tax holiday would have been more equitable and had a greater stimulus effect, so I won't. Yes, tangents. Anyway getting the thread back on track, President Bush and I are in agreement on this one: The last round of tax cuts was unneccessary, inequitable, and simply a giveaway to the super rich, at the expense of fiscal responsibilty Hell, I didn't even have to bring up the ballooning federal deficit that are the result of this unprecedented show of avarice. Looks like you, TraderJ, are on the: OUTSIDE LOOKING IN
how much lag are we going to sit and wait through ? it has been like 2 years since the first tax-cuts went through....2+ years into this "recovery" and still, no new jobs 1,000 new jobs created in Dec 277,000 created in last 6 months Conclusion (as all ecnomist predicted): Tax-cuts haven't done anything to spur job growth. Trinkle-down supply-side economics fails AGAIN
RE: Jobs going to India and China, etc. The US has one of the highest standard of living in the world. The reason behind that is that our workers continue to be more productive than the world. By allowing manual labor jobs to leave the US, we are rightfully forcing ourselves to be a more 'service' oriented economy rather than an industrial economy. It is the natural progression in which unskilled labor will continue diminish in the United States. If we try to sustain jobs here that can be done cheaper internationally then we are stifling the growth in our economy and are wasting our resources. The benefits of living in the US is high employment, incredible standard of living relative to the world, and an array of social services, but to survive you must be very productive on the job in order to be compensated for your work. People will ultimately be compensated for the value of what they do. Our society's high standard of living will come with a high cost and people must be able to produce or they will get left behind. This is just plain economics. Anyone trying to stop this through tariffs, forcing companies to hire in the US, etc are just prolonging the inevitable. I have just never understood the concept of why someone should be paid more for what they do here versus that of anywhere else in the world. You should be compensated for the added value of your presence. Your presence should not be subsidized to make up for you compensation being higher than the value you create.
You're a little behind the curve FDK. The problem with the latest round of job losses is not lost manufacturing jobs overseas, the problem is that services jobs are now migrating overseas (customer service call centers, programming, IT, graphic design, that sort of thing). These jobs are gone, are not coming back, and have yet to be replaced. Go to the Hangout forum and look at the "unemployment thread". As you'll see, it's not peopled with factory workers or manual laborers; most people on their have a college degree and were formerly in the IT/financial or other services based field.
Did anyone notice that the November numbers were revised downward before the Dec. numbers came out? Otherwise, there would have been a net loss in Dec. This is one in a series of questionable projections and revisions by the administration regarding economic indicators. Inevitabley, the projections favor the administration and are released with great fanfare while the revisions are barely mentioned.
Sam, your argument has now descended to the depths of pure lunacy. You refuse to support your little business cycle theory as to why the economy experienced record levels of growth last quarter. Now you are completing ignoring any effects that this same business cycle has on the federal deficit by blaming it solely on the tax relief. The inconsistencies inherent in your argument abound. You have many questions to answer. Begin with this list: 1) Support your reasoning for how the business cycle, and not the tax cuts, aided last quarter's growth 2) Provide a detailed analysis as to how your payroll tax holiday is relevant to this discussion. 3) Tell me how tax cuts which help the economy are "unecessary" and "add to the federal deficit". As a supplement to this answer, tell me whether tax receipts go up or down when the economy improves. DEFEND YOURSELF
Employement rates are not the correct basis for strength in the economy. What if viewed is GDP growth, which has done much better than expected. Your statements about the consensus of economists against a decrease in marginal tax rates for the purpose of pushing job growth is ignorant and misleading. I think the tax cuts were a good idea, but I don't think that short spikes in GDP based more on government spending and some due to tax cuts is the basis to crown the Bush team. I think the lasting effects over years will tell the tale. I am concerned with the spending, but feel that investment is needed and they are making the moves to continue investment in this country that leads to job growth, higher productivity and GDP growth.
